- Western press coverage of the horror that is Fallujah
has with the odd exception been nothing short of outrageous in its distortions
and blatant propagandising. Even where it purports to be critical of the
US in its destruction of Fallujah and its inhabitants, the sub-text continues
to push the Western line of 'foreign militants', 'mistakes' and in the
case of the following story, as some kind of retribution for the deaths
of four US mercenaries and the beheadings by the mythical Abu al-Zarqawi.
-
- The following report by Justin Huggler from yesterday's
Independent (11/11/04) is typical. I've highlighted the sections that either
accept as fact the situation in Fallujah (without substantiation) or that
omits background and context thus rendering the story essentially meaningless.
Moreover, this 'news' report is anything but news, as it is full of opinion
and assertions about events and their causes without an iota of support.
And indeed, the story contradicts itself a number of times as you can see.
My comments are in brackets following the sections in question...
-
-
- Odds Heavily Against U.S. Counter-Attack Succeeding
-
- By Justin Huggler
- The Independent - UK
- Thursday 11 November 2004
-
- There was something familiar in the muddy reports from
Fallujah.
-
- Just as during the invasion of Iraq last year, television
pictures provided drama, but little hard information. Nobody was really
sure how the American assault was going.
-
- A city still packed with civilians has been subjected
to a withering assault of United States air strikes and artillery. But
outside the Arab world, international criticism of the US attack on the
city was unexpectedly muted
-
- [The fact that censorship has effectively blocked news
about the real conditions is not mentioned].
-
- There was a sense among many observers that this latest
ratcheting of Iraq's agony had become inevitable.
-
- [Inevitable? If the information is blocked, then how
are people expected to react? And the subtle racism of the comment about
'outside the Arab world' as if criticism from within is somehow less valid,
in other words, it only means something if Europeans make a fuss.]
-
- The Americans painted themselves into a corner. The mistakes
that led to yesterday's fighting were made long ago, in the invasion of
Iraq and the woeful failure to administer the country that followed. The
US could not stand by and do nothing as the country descended ever further
into anarchy.
-
- [Mistakes or policy? Once more the article leaves the
reader with the impression that US strategy in Iraq is the result of some
kind of 'mistake'. Huggler compounds the misrepresentation by asserting
the US were somehow 'forced' to destroy Fallujah and Huggler transforms
resistance to the occupation into an allegation of anarchy!]
-
- The insurgents are able to operate at will, striking
where and when they please. The wave of beheadings of Westerners and Iraqis
who work for the West has wrecked any vestigial hope of rebuilding the
country.
-
- [Wave? Wrecked? How does Huggler conclude that the 'wave'
of beheadings has wrecked any chances for rebuilding Iraq? What exactly,
is the connection between beheadings and anarchy? And compared to the daily
destruction of life by the occupation forces, the beheadings are anything
but a wave.]
-
- The last aid agencies are fleeing.
-
- Unless the Americans were to admit defeat and leave -
which they won't, yet - they had to try to strike back at the insurgents.
-
- [What makes Huggler think that the US have any intention
of leaving? And so 'striking back' is what? A fit of pique? And on what
basis does Huggler make the assertion that the US has to strike back and
at what, the civilian population of a city of 300,000? And the continual
use of the word 'insurgent' masks the reality of nation-wide (and growing)
resistance to the occupation.]
-
- Fallujah's defiance has come to symbolize the insurgency,
and it appears to have become a major base for foreign militants such as
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian al Qaeda ally who is accused of being
behind many of the beheadings.
-
- [Again, where is the evidence for Fallujah being a major
base of 'foreign insurgents'? There is not a shred of evidence to back
up this claim. Furthermore, Huggler connects the beheadings to the resistance
in Fallujah. Again, where is the evidence?]
-
- But every indication is that the odds are heavily against
this US counter-attack succeeding. There is no doubt the Americans have
the military strength to take Fallujah, or raze it. But that is not their
aim. They need to stem the insurgency, and the omens are not good.
-
- ['Take Fallujah' when even the biased and censored coverage
shows a city already pretty well razed. So what is their aim and how does
Huggler know this is not their aim? Does it not occur to Huggler that the
'aim' is to make an example of Fallujah in the belief that the Iraqi people
will give in and surrender to being occupied?]
-
-
-
- But the Americans have more fundamental problems. The
truth is they don't know how many insurgents there are, who they are or
where they are. If they did they could launch more pinpoint attacks. They
are mounting a full-scale assault that risks massive civilian casualties
which would only turn Iraq against them more completely than ever.
-
- [How Huggler squares this paragraph with his earlier
(unsubstantiated} comments about Fallujah being a "major base for
foreign militants' such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi" is not explained
nor the reality (rather than the 'risk' as Huggler puts it) of the wholesale
loss of life. And is Huggler saying that the US would actually use 'pinpoint'
attacks because it wants to minimise 'collateral damage' even as it seeks
'retribution'?]
-
- The Americans have made much of Zarqawi, but all the
signs are that he is really only one among many insurgent leaders. The
Americans have not even named another.
-
- [Again, the assumption is that resistance to foreign
occupation can only come from 'foreign militants'. Moreover, on what does
Huggler base his claim that Zarqawi is a leader? The only 'evidence' we
have are some fuzzy videos and endless claims by the US and the British.
It is just as likely, based on the complete lack of concrete evidence that
'al-Zarqawì is a Western invention if not an actual 'asset'.]
-
- The assumption that Fallujah is a city of Iraqis under
the control of foreign militants is wrong. There may be foreign militants
there, but they are allied with Iraqi insurgents.
-
- [Now we have Huggler telling us that there 'may be foreign
militants' and rather than it actually being a 'major base', Huggler now
tells us that it is an assumption as opposed to Fallujah being a 'major
base'.]
-
- Fallujah is a microcosm of the problem the US has created
in Iraq. The invasion has blurred the lines between the Islamic extremist
movement - the likes of Zarqawi - and Iraqi nationalists protecting their
land from foreign occupation. The "war on terror" has become
hopelessly blurred with nationalist resistance against occupation.
-
- [Blurred the line? The only 'blurred line' is the one
that has been drawn by Huggler. and how does Huggler come to the conclusion
that some kind of line has been blurred between the 'war on terror' and
the war on the Iraqi people?]
-
- The chances are that most foreign militants will slip
out of Fallujah and the Americans will find themselves fighting local Iraqis
trying to defend their city. If the Americans were to strike it spectacularly
lucky, they might kill or capture Zarqawi and other foreign militants,
and manage to avoid inflicting heavy casualties. But the odds are against
it. The likes of Zarqawi are probably long gone.
-
- [The myopia is staggering! Huggler of course, assumes
that the Americans have not been fighting an Iraqi resistance from the
get-go. Conveniently, the 'foreign militants' will 'slip away' and after
dropping 2000 lb bombs on the city the miracle will be if only a few civilians
are murdered.]
-
- Or the Americans may have another aim in mind: To respond
to the nightmare videos of Westerners being beheaded in kind. They may
feel "putting Fallujah to the torch", as it has been described
in the American press, will put the insurgents on notice that they can
expect horror in exchange for horror.
-
- [What are we to make of this comment? What of the nightmare
onslaught on Fallujah Justin Huggler? Is Huggler saying that the destruction
of an entire city and its inhabitants is equivilent to the deaths of four
Americans? Is it some kind of admission that the US may have some other
objective than the one they put out? So the destruction of Fallujah is
to punish hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and destroy their city in retribution
for the deaths of four US mercenaries (never mind that Huggler refuses
to identify the four dead Americans as mercenaries)? I might add that the
corporate press in many of its stories about the then impending invasion
of Fallujah made sure to include the fact that four US nationals died in
Fallujah. Coincidence?]
-
- I plucked this story pretty well at random from the slew
of stories that allegedly inform the reader of the situation in Fallujah.
There is something deeply obscene about the sub-text of this story, that
in all likelyhood the writer is not even aware of. But then self-deception
is the starting point for self-censorship let alone the intervention of
the dead hand of the editorial staff.
-
- http://www.williambowles.info/
|
